Erlich v. Erlich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Erlich v. Erlich

306 A.D.2d 165, 762 N.Y.S.2d 62, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7228

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 19, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 306 A.D.2d 165 (Erlich v. Erlich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Erlich v. Erlich, 306 A.D.2d 165, 762 N.Y.S.2d 62, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7228 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about April 12, 2002, which denied respondent former husband’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order, entered on or about December 21, 2001, finding that respondent owes petitioner former wife a balance of $40,274.09 in maintenance and child support arrears on outstanding judgments, plus $8,318.38 in new arrears, for a total of $48,592.47, to be paid by respondent, if employed, at a rate that would reduce his annual income to $34,380.50, unanimously modified, on the facts, to reduce the total arrears on outstanding judgments to $40,040, and raise the amount to which respondent’s annual income may be reduced to $36,575, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

[166]*166Family Court accorded appropriate deference to the Hearing Examiner’s findings, which were based largely on credibility (see Matter of Sledge v Sledge, 228 AD2d 310 [1996]). We reject respondent’s contention that the prior Maryland income deduction order, which excluded arrears attributable to the children’s health care and educational expenses, precludes enforcement of such obligations in New York, which has continuing jurisdiction of the matter (see Matter of Parenzan v Parenzan, 285 AD2d 59 [2001], lv dismissed 97 NY2d 700 [2002]; Matter of Shafer v Martin, 287 AD2d 825, 826 [2001]). As the Hearing Examiner found, the Maryland order simply reflects Maryland law, which does not provide for such obligations in a child support order, and did not purport to adjudicate petitioner’s right thereto under the New York judgments. We modify the total amount of arrears awarded under outstanding judgments to reflect the amount sought. We also modify to correct an arithmetic error in the calculation of the income deduction order based on the federal poverty income guidelines. We have considered respondent’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Family Court, New York County (Sheldon Rand, J.), entered on or about April 12, 2002, which denied respondent former husband’s objections to the Hearing Examiner’s order, entered on or about December 21, 2001, finding that respondent owes petitioner former wife a balance of $40,274.09 in maintenance and child support arrears on outstanding judgments, plus $8,318.38 in new arrears, for a total of $48,592.47, to be paid by respondent, if employed, at a rate that would reduce his annual income to $34,380.50, unanimously modified, on the facts, to reduce the total arrears on outstanding judgments to $40,040, and raise the amount to which respondent’s annual income may be reduced to $36,575, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

[166]*166Family Court accorded appropriate deference to the Hearing Examiner’s findings, which were based largely on credibility (see Matter of Sledge v Sledge, 228 AD2d 310 [1996]). We reject respondent’s contention that the prior Maryland income deduction order, which excluded arrears attributable to the children’s health care and educational expenses, precludes enforcement of such obligations in New York, which has continuing jurisdiction of the matter (see Matter of Parenzan v Parenzan, 285 AD2d 59 [2001], lv dismissed 97 NY2d 700 [2002]; Matter of Shafer v Martin, 287 AD2d 825, 826 [2001]). As the Hearing Examiner found, the Maryland order simply reflects Maryland law, which does not provide for such obligations in a child support order, and did not purport to adjudicate petitioner’s right thereto under the New York judgments. We modify the total amount of arrears awarded under outstanding judgments to reflect the amount sought. We also modify to correct an arithmetic error in the calculation of the income deduction order based on the federal poverty income guidelines. We have considered respondent’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Rosenberger and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 165, 762 N.Y.S.2d 62, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erlich-v-erlich-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack